Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: andy on June 01, 2023, 04:42:38 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJq13vXUhhI
-
I think we are all Sr Wilhelmina'd out by now, Andy.
May she rest in peace!
Check the search engine.
-
If the Bishop made it clear that people are not to visit, why are so many tradcasters telling people to go visit?
-
I think we are all Sr Wilhelmina'd out by now, Andy.
May she rest in peace!
Check the search engine.
Yeah, this is only about the 3rd or 4th thread on the subject.
-
If the Bishop made it clear that people are not to visit, why are so many tradcasters telling people to go visit?
The answer is that trads no longer understand obedience to the Magisterium.
This is the obedience Catholics owe to the hierarchy
of the true Catholic Church:
(https://i.imgur.com/PDEM5NI.png)
Are these defiant tradcasters and visitors giving "submission of mind, intellect, and will" to their Bishop? Why not??
Are they Protestants?
Do they not understand that disobeying your Bishop is schism?
(https://i.imgur.com/dEY2BhB.png)
Sadly it's because VII created a false church, a straw man church, which now can be mocked, villified, defied, disobeyed, resisted, and ultimately destroyed,
traditional minded Catholics are duped into destroying the strawman church with their own disobedience.
(https://i.imgur.com/PyAIHAT.png)
(strawman church of Vatican II)
The disobedience of the Bishop's directives in the Sr Wilhemina case is no different than the disobedience of the Bishop's directives in the Medjugorje case.
Sadly, concilliar trads now see themselves as the arbiters of truth who do not need to obey the authority of the hierarchy
since they can (rightly) see it is not proclaiming truth
but fail to recognize that it is
a false hierarchy
of a false church
and remnant of the apostates who left the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
during the Great Apostasy of Vatican II.
-
Yeah, this is only about the 3rd or 4th thread on the subject.
I honestly checked prior posting it. I guess my internet stills lack.
-
I honestly checked prior posting it. I guess my internet stills lack.
I actually suspect that the Search Engine has been throttled somehow, because there are threads that I KNOW had certain words in it that I started that do not appear in the search results. Sometimes I go to Google and search "Ladislaus cathinfo.com [word or phrase from the thread]" and I'll find threads that I could not find using the forum search engine.
-
The answer is that trads no longer understand obedience to the Magisterium.
This is the obedience Catholics owe to the hierarchy
of the true Catholic Church:
(https://i.imgur.com/PDEM5NI.png)
Are these defiant tradcasters and visitors giving "submission of mind, intellect, and will" to their Bishop? Why not??
Are they Protestants?
Do they not understand that disobeying your Bishop is schism?
(https://i.imgur.com/dEY2BhB.png)
Sadly it's because VII created a false church, a straw man church, which now can be mocked, villified, defied, disobeyed, resisted, and ultimately destroyed,
traditional minded Catholics are duped into destroying the strawman church with their own disobedience.
(https://i.imgur.com/PyAIHAT.png)
(strawman church of Vatican II)
The disobedience of the Bishop's directives in the Sr Wilhemina case is no different than the disobedience of the Bishop's directives in the Medjugorje case.
Sadly, concilliar trads now see themselves as the arbiters of truth who do not need to obey the authority of the hierarchy
since they can (rightly) see it is not proclaiming truth
but fail to recognize that it is
a false hierarchy
of a false church
and remnant of the apostates who left the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
during the Great Apostasy of Vatican II.
Hello Miser,
I don't think your conclusion is sound. Catholics throughout the ages have always canonized their Saints, by unilaterally establishing their cults, long before the Church pronounced their sanctity with binding authority. For centuries, if I'm not mistaken, Saints, especially martyrs, were canonized without the juridical formalities we are familiar with.
Look at the crowds at Lourdes and Fatima. The defied all attempts by the ecclesiastical and civil authorities to derail their attendance at the apparition sites, and to tamp down their excitement and conviction.
The faithful running towards something perceived as miraculous, even in the face of admonishments by the hierarchy aimed at quenching such fires, is de rigeur in our long Catholic history.
I would even go so far as to say that both the novus ordo bishops who are applying the brakes, and the faithful who are full steam ahead no matter what anyone says, are playing their customary parts in the Divine Drama.
This behavior of the faithful has nothing to do with Vatican II. In fact, I'd almost say it was "traditional."
-
I don't think your conclusion is sound. Catholics throughout the ages have always canonized their Saints, by unilaterally establishing their cults, long before the Church pronounced their sanctity with binding authority. For centuries, if I'm not mistaken, Saints, especially martyrs, were canonized without the juridical formalities we are familiar with.
Yeah, but then the priests, clergy, and lay faithful used to elected their bishops also. Things have changed. Many theologians hold that the saints canonized in this manner (by grass roots movements) are not infallibly canonized.
But Miser's point stands. Private revelations, miracles, etc. are under the jurisdiction of the local ordinary, and if the local ordinary (that's whom most of these Motu-type tradcasters consider him to be anyway) has told people to stay away, these types should submit to that order / judgment.
-
The answer is that trads no longer understand obedience to the Magisterium.
This is the obedience Catholics owe to the hierarchy
We don't agree with YOUR interpretation of obedience. We don't have to agree with it, no matter how much you (and the other sedevacantists) try to browbeat us into accepting it.
-
I actually suspect that the Search Engine has been throttled somehow, because there are threads that I KNOW had certain words in it that I started that do not appear in the search results. Sometimes I go to Google and search "Ladislaus cathinfo.com [word or phrase from the thread]" and I'll find threads that I could not find using the forum search engine.
Indeed. Google "wilhelmina site:cathinfo.com" is useless. I just used the native search and found 2 threads https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/sister-wilhelmina-lancaster-osb's-body-found-incorrupt https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/sr-wilhelmina-incorrupt
I do not read CI daily, so I had to miss those threads.
-
We don't agree with YOUR interpretation of obedience. We don't have to agree with it, no matter how much you (and the other sedevacantists) try to browbeat us into accepting it.
Sometimes I wonder what you actually believe. Even according to classic R&R principles, Catholics are bound to obey their superiors, their bishops, priests, etc. ... UNLESS something they command is contrary to faith. What part of what this bishop ordered was contrary to the faith? It's perfectly within a bishop's authority and rights to command the faithful to stay away from purported miraculous phenomena until such a time as the Church has been able to investigate it. Please explain what principle would justify disobedience in this case, where his command was contrary to faith, or is it that you reject the any concept of "obedience" at all. Or does "YOUR interpretation of obedience" define it as "I'll obey if I feel like it."?
-
Sometimes I wonder what you actually believe. Even according to classic R&R principles, Catholics are bound to obey their superiors, their bishops, priests, etc. ... UNLESS something they command is contrary to faith. What part of what this bishop ordered was contrary to the faith? It's perfectly within a bishop's authority and rights to command the faithful to stay away from purported miraculous phenomena until such a time as the Church has been able to investigate it. Please explain what principle would justify disobedience in this case, where his command was contrary to faith, or is it that you reject the any concept of "obedience" at all. Or does "YOUR interpretation of obedience" define it as "I'll obey if I feel like it."?
I basically believe what +ABL believed. But then, since when have Catholics obeyed when it comes to devotions to those whom they believe are holy, but not yet considered so by the Church. I recall the situations of St. Bernadette, Fatima, etc., where the bishop told the Faithful to stay away, but did they listen? No!
At the same time, I'm fine with the bishop in this situation saying what he did. He has to be careful, of course.
I think that for sedevacantists, this is more about the idea that nothing good can ever come from the conciliar church. So of course you must take a stand against it. I personally am glad that Sr. Wilhelmina may be saint. I get that this is cringeworthy for sedevacantists though.
-
I basically believe what +ABL believed. But then, since when have Catholics obeyed when it comes to devotions to those whom they believe are holy, but not yet considered so by the Church. I recall the situations of St. Bernadette, Fatima, etc., where the bishop told the Faithful to stay away, but did they listen? No!
At the same time, I'm fine with the bishop in this situation saying what he did. He has to be careful, of course.
I think that for sedevacantists, this is more about the idea that nothing good can ever come from the conciliar church. So of course you must take a stand against it. I personally am glad that Sr. Wilhelmina may be saint. I get that this is cringeworthy for sedevacantists though.
No, you really don't believe what Archbishop Lefebvre did. His position was that you had to obey the Catholic authorities unless the faith necessitated refusing a command, you know, "Faith is greater than obedience." As to your "since when have Catholics obeyed ...?", so what? That doesn't mean they shouldn't have. In fact, if a visionary disobeys the orders of a Church authority, that entails automatic disqualification of legitimacy. Question posed earlier had nothing to do with the sedevacantists, but was calling out the non-sedevacantist talking heads over refusing the legitimate orders of someone they consider to be a Catholic prelate. Your response is an epic fail.
-
Fr. Hesse explained once that veneration can come from the Faithful. In fact this is (or rather used to be) one of the conditions for the beatification/canonization processes.
-
Meg, does race play a part in your enthusiasm for Sr. Wilhelmina? Maybe you've mentioned your race somewhere, but if you did I missed it.
-
Yeah, but then the priests, clergy, and lay faithful used to elected their bishops also. Things have changed. Many theologians hold that the saints canonized in this manner (by grass roots movements) are not infallibly canonized.
But Miser's point stands. Private revelations, miracles, etc. are under the jurisdiction of the local ordinary, and if the local ordinary (that's whom most of these Motu-type tradcasters consider him to be anyway) has told people to stay away, these types should submit to that order / judgment.
There's a distinction between spontaneous veneration by the faithful, even in spite of the hierarchy trying to tamp it down, and full blown disobedience after the Church has issued a ruling. My post referred to the first instance.
The interesting thing about the case of Sr. Wilhelmina is that you have a docuмented factual anomaly encased in an authority vacuum. It seems to me that if this is truly Divinely caused, it must be a universal sign to be pondered in hearts, and likely the first sign of more to come. For I don't see how we can reasonably look to the novus ordo to conduct a proper ecclesiastical investigation. We really have no way of knowing authoritatively if it is a supernatural occurrence.
Material science can go a long way in helping us understand possible physical causalities, and if they operated in this case. But it cannot judge miracles or preternatural manifestations. The most it can do is conclude that this is not naturally caused.
Therefore if it is real, then it is anomalous in another way - real but presently incapable of being judged by the Church. Would God do this? I can only imagine that He would if this occurrence belongs to a series of signs that portend a shift. I can think of the example of a series of signs given to Jerusalem before its destruction. These signs were given to warn the faithful to leave. If other signs manifest now, it might be for the sake of the faithful - to enkindle their hope and to encourage them to confess and amend.
-
Meg, does race play a part in your enthusiasm for Sr. Wilhelmina? Maybe you've mentioned your race somewhere, but if you did I missed it.
I am 100% white (English, Scottish, Scandivanian, Irish, welsh).
Do you believe that blacks are human? I'm just wondering, because there are some white supremacist protestants who believe that blacks and Jєωs aren't human (in that they descend from Satan, who was Cain's real father). You sound like them.
-
No, you really don't believe what Archbishop Lefebvre did. His position was that you had to obey the Catholic authorities unless the faith necessitated refusing a command, you know, "Faith is greater than obedience." As to your "since when have Catholics obeyed ...?", so what? That doesn't mean they shouldn't have. In fact, if a visionary disobeys the orders of a Church authority, that entails automatic disqualification of legitimacy. Question posed earlier had nothing to do with the sedevacantists, but was calling out the non-sedevacantist talking heads over refusing the legitimate orders of someone they consider to be a Catholic prelate. Your response is an epic fail.
You have re-invented +ABL, just like the ralliers have. I don't mind that you think that my response is an epic fail.
Fr. Chazal mentioned in one of his sermons a few months ago - and he put forth this question: why don't traditionalists have any saints? He said that the Novus Ordo has had saints (martyrs in Africa, I think he said), but we don't have any. He said there is a lack of charity in tradition. I've no idea what he thinks of the Sr. Wilhelmina situation though.
-
I am 100% white (English, Scottish, Scandivanian, Irish, welsh).
Do you believe that blacks are human? I'm just wondering, because there are some white supremacist protestants who believe that blacks and Jєωs aren't human (that they descend from Satan, who was Cain's real father). You sound like them.
Why would you think I sound like them? I started a Curse of Ham thread some years back and came to the conclusion, based on the information found that though the Church has never sanctioned or condemned the Curse of Ham applying to blacks, those Catholics who have believed the curse applying to blacks haven't been censured or excommunicated.
https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/anne-catherine-emmerich-the-curse-of-ham/
I don't really know if this curse applies to blacks. This Curse of Ham seems to have Jew-тαℓмυdic origins. For all I know those Catholics who have been influenced by the Curse of Ham are Judaized.
It's troubling that you use the term "white supremacist." Do you have mixed-raced people in your family? Is your spouse non-white?
Humans are designed to prefer their own tribe to other tribes. Some people hate their own tribe, but then they prefer another tribe, so it's still the same thing. It doesn't entail hatred of other tribes, merely preference. Even Catholics are not race-blind or ethnically-blind. Italian-Catholics, Irish-Catholics, et cetera still self-segregate.
I'm never bothered when anyone has racial/ethnic preferences. I consider it normal behavior.
I dislike hypocrisy. Jews are the ultimate tribalists. Jesus called them whited sepulchres. They don't like it that gentiles are tribal, but their own tribalism bothers them not a bit.
-
Why would you think I sound like them? I started a Curse of Ham thread some years back and came to the conclusion, based on the information found that though the Church has never sanctioned or condemned the Curse of Ham applying to blacks, those Catholics who have believed the curse applying to blacks haven't been censured or excommunicated.
https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/anne-catherine-emmerich-the-curse-of-ham/
I don't really know if this curse applies to blacks. This Curse of Ham seems to have Jєω-тαℓмυdic origins. For all I know those Catholics who have been influenced by the Curse of Ham are Judaized.
It's troubling that you use the term "white supremacist." Do you have mixed-raced people in your family? Is your spouse non-white?
Humans are designed to prefer their own tribe to other tribes. Some people hate their own tribe, but then they prefer another tribe, so it's still the same thing. It doesn't entail hatred of other tribes, merely preference. Even Catholics are not race-blind or ethnically-blind. Italian-Catholics, Irish-Catholics, et cetera still self-segregate.
I'm never bothered when anyone has racial/ethnic preferences. I consider it normal behavior.
I dislike hypocrisy. Jєωs are the ultimate tribalists. Jesus called them whited sepulchres. They don't like it that gentiles are tribal, but their own tribalism bothers them not a bit.
Oh dear - I seem to have triggered your Jewdar. So what else is new? :laugh1:
So you do believe, as some white supremacist protestants believe, that Jews are descended from Cain, and therefore are not quite human. You do realize that that is a prot error, and not Catholic?
I don't have a problem with people segregating themselves as a race. I do, however, like black people. I grew up in poor, black neighborhoods, and they were good to me, and befriended me. Unlike me, they had two parents at home, but that was the 1960's. Things are different now.
-
Oh dear - I seem to have triggered your Jєωdar. So what else is new? :laugh1:
So you do believe, as some white supremacist protestants believe, that Jєωs are descended from Cain, and therefore are not quite human. You do realize that that is a prot error, and not Catholic?
I don't have a problem with people segregating themselves as a race. I do, however, like black people. I grew up in poor, black neighborhoods, and they were good to me, and befriended me. Unlike me, they had two parents at home, but that was the 1960's. Things are different now.
No, you haven't activated my jewdar. I grew up in Section 8 housing for some of my childhood. Those neighborhoods were mostly black. I hated some of the blacks, liked others. As an adult I cross paths with some blacks I like and some blacks I'd like to turn into strange fruit. I have the same view of just about any racial/ethnic group. Some I like, some I don't. Including my own group. But I prefer white gentiles. And I don't fault myself for that.
"white supremacist protestants"?
I've never been attracted to Protestantism. "White supremacism" needs to be distinctly defined. You keep mentioning people who view blacks or Jews as "not human." I don't view blacks or Jews or any other race as "not human." Maimonides, one of the most respected rabbis, once theorized as to whether or not non-jews and jews are members of different species. Why don't you bring him up? Maybe you're not aware of him?
-
There's a distinction between spontaneous veneration by the faithful, even in spite of the hierarchy trying to tamp it down, and full blown disobedience after the Church has issued a ruling. My post referred to the first instance.
Not really. While no one can prevent the faithful from opining for or against the authenticity of this case, a bishop has the authority to shut down any public activity surrounding the phenomenon, and that's what the debate here is about.
-
Not really. While no one can prevent the faithful from opining for or against the authenticity of this case, a bishop has the authority to shut down any public activity surrounding the phenomenon, and that's what the debate here is about.
I didn't know we were having a debate about unauthorized public activity, because I am unaware of any. Where's the disobedience?
Is it that the Sisters allowed people to come and venerate/touch the body before it was re-interred? If they took it upon themselves to do that, before seeking their "bishop's" counsel, then perhaps they are self-willed and perhaps wayward. If they had consulted him first, he may have told them to keep everything secret. If they acted unilaterally, they might argue, of course, that SrW is a public figure and that it is perfectly normal to venerate the remains of those for whom we have a good hope of salvation, even to ask their prayers - as we ask the prayers of our deceased relatives and friends. But given these circuмstances, it seems the only true course of action would be to call in the authorities before making anything public. In fact, they claim they tried to keep it secret, but it was leaked. I have a hard time believing that.
If they allowed the public to make pilgrimages to their grounds after their "bishop" gave them an order to desist, then we are talking about real disobedience. Has that happened?
What are the factual grounds for the accusation of disobedience? The true facts seem to be shrouded.
-
I didn't know we were having a debate about unauthorized public activity, because I am unaware of any. Where's the disobedience?
Debate started early with this post ...
If the Bishop made it clear that people are not to visit, why are so many tradcasters telling people to go visit?
-
On May, 22nd, the Monday Within the Octave of the Ascension, the "diocesan bishop" issued a public statement on his official website. This was four days after the exhumation. It contains no order, directive, or prohibition.
https://kcsjcatholic.org/2023/05/statement-regarding-sister-wilhelmina-lancaster/
Statement regarding Sister Wilhelmina Lancaster
POSTED ON MAY 22, 2023 IN NEWS
The condition of the remains of Sister Wilhelmina Lancaster has understandably generated widespread interest and raised important questions. At the same time, it is important to protect the integrity of the mortal remains of Sister Wilhelmina to allow for a thorough investigation.
The condition of the remains of Sister Wilhelmina Lancaster has understandably generated widespread interest and raised important questions. At the same time, it is important to protect the integrity of the mortal remains of Sister Wilhelmina to allow for a thorough investigation.
Bishop Johnston is working to establish a thorough process for understanding the nature of the condition of Sister Wilhelmina’s remains.
Incorruptibility has been verified in the past, but it is very rare. There is a well-established process to pursue the cause for sainthood, but that has not been initiated in this case yet.
Bishop Johnston invites all the Faithful to continue praying during this time of investigation for God’s will in the lives of the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles; for all women religious; and all the baptized in our common vocation to holiness, with hope and trust in the Lord.
Then four days later, on May 26th, the "bishop" released another statement:
Bishop’s May 26 statement regarding Sister Wilhelmina Lancaster
POSTED ON MAY 26, 2023 IN NEWS
The condition of the remains of Sister Wilhelmina Lancaster has understandably generated widespread interest and raised important questions. At the same time, it is important to protect the integrity of the mortal remains of Sister Wilhelmina to allow for a thorough investigation.
The Church has an established process for determining if someone is a saint and worthy of veneration. No such process has yet been initiated on behalf of Sister Wilhelmina. It is understandable that many would be driven by faith and devotion to see the mortal remains of Sister Wilhelmina given the remarkable condition of her body, but visitors should not touch or venerate her body, or treat them as relics.
I invite all the Faithful to continue praying during this time of evaluation and determination for God’s will in the lives of the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles; for all women religious; and all the baptized in our common vocation to holiness, with hope and trust in the Lord.
Bishop James V. Johnston, Jr.
Here we have one directive: Do not touch, venerate, or treat her body as a relic. He does not prohibit visitation. In fact his message presupposes, and implicitly ratifies the visits of the faithful to pay their respects. His directive is a guideline for the conduct of the faithful during their visits.
This answers Miser's question: Why are the tradcasters telling people to go visit? Because the "bishop" has not "made it clear that people are not to visit."
Miser set up an argument based on erroneous facts. Therefore her conclusion is absolutely false.
-
On May, 22nd, the Monday Within the Octave of the Ascension, the "diocesan bishop" issued a public statement on his official website. This was four days after the exhumation. It contains no order, directive, or prohibition.
Then four days later, on May 26th, the "bishop" released another statement:
Here we have one directive: Do not touch, venerate, or treat her body as a relic. He does not prohibit visitation. In fact his message presupposes, and implicitly ratifies the visits of the faithful to pay their respects. His directive is a guideline for the conduct of the faithful during their visits.
This answers Miser's question: Why are the tradcasters telling people to go visit? Because the "bishop" has not "made it clear that people are not to visit."
Miser set up an argument based on erroneous facts. Therefore her conclusion is absolutely false.
I see. There are a few things going on that make this a bit confusing.
Here is an excerpt from the Bishop's statement I saw regarding not making visits:
"For these reasons, and for the concerns of civic authorities for the safety and well-being of visitors, I discourage anyone in the Diocese of Jefferson City from visiting the Benedictine Abbey in Gower, Missouri, or treating the mortal remains of Sister Wilhelmina as relics."
https://diojeffcity.org/blog/2023/05/26/statement-from-bishop-mcknight-regarding-the-remains-of-sister-wilhelmina-lancaster/
This is from Bishop McKnight who oversees the same order of nuns in Ava, Mo. where they are building a new monastery.
The Bishop you reference above, Bishop Johnston, oversees the monastery in Gower where the body of Sr Wilhemena is being viewed.
Still, many are touching her body and touching items to her body so as to venerate it as relics so they are not obeying his directives either.
I think it's important to understand why the Church put procedures in place to oversee these events. It's not to be mean or unreasonable. It's to preserve the integrity of the process so that approved miracles are not discounted by the fraudulent ones. When the procedures are not followed it can cause doubts about that particular case and about the Church itself.
Like a court case, evidence that has been tampered with or procedures not followed can throw out the whole case.
-
I see. There are a few things going on that make this a bit confusing.
Here is an excerpt from the Bishop's statement I saw regarding not making visits:
"For these reasons, and for the concerns of civic authorities for the safety and well-being of visitors, I discourage anyone in the Diocese of Jefferson City from visiting the Benedictine Abbey in Gower, Missouri, or treating the mortal remains of Sister Wilhelmina as relics."
https://diojeffcity.org/blog/2023/05/26/statement-from-bishop-mcknight-regarding-the-remains-of-sister-wilhelmina-lancaster/
This is from Bishop McKnight who oversees the same order of nuns in Ava, Mo. where they are building a new monastery.
The Bishop you reference above, Bishop Johnston, oversees the monastery in Gower where the body of Sr Wilhemena is being viewed.
Still, many are touching her body and touching items to her body so as to venerate it as relics so they are not obeying his directives either.
I think it's important to understand why the Church put procedures in place to oversee these events. It's not to be mean or unreasonable. It's to preserve the integrity of the process so that approved miracles are not discounted by the fraudulent ones. When the procedures are not followed it can cause doubts about that particular case and about the Church itself.
Like a court case, evidence that has been tampered with or procedures not followed can throw out the whole case.
It would be a simple procedure to remove the people from close proximity of the body, by roping off an area around the body just wide enough so that the body could not be touched or handled. It is wrong of the nuns to allow any touching even without a demand from the bishop. It is simple common sense.
-
I see. There are a few things going on that make this a bit confusing.
Here is an excerpt from the Bishop's statement I saw regarding not making visits:
"For these reasons, and for the concerns of civic authorities for the safety and well-being of visitors, I discourage anyone in the Diocese of Jefferson City from visiting the Benedictine Abbey in Gower, Missouri, or treating the mortal remains of Sister Wilhelmina as relics."
https://diojeffcity.org/blog/2023/05/26/statement-from-bishop-mcknight-regarding-the-remains-of-sister-wilhelmina-lancaster/
This is from Bishop McKnight who oversees the same order of nuns in Ava, Mo. where they are building a new monastery.
The Bishop you reference above, Bishop Johnston, oversees the monastery in Gower where the body of Sr Wilhemena is being viewed.
Still, many are touching her body and touching items to her body so as to venerate it as relics so they are not obeying his directives either.
I think it's important to understand why the Church put procedures in place to oversee these events. It's not to be mean or unreasonable. It's to preserve the integrity of the process so that approved miracles are not discounted by the fraudulent ones. When the procedures are not followed it can cause doubts about that particular case and about the Church itself.
Like a court case, evidence that has been tampered with or procedures not followed can throw out the whole case.
Hello Miser,
Yes indeed, this case is very confusing. I find it difficult to get facts. All we seem to be getting is pro-sainthood propaganda. I find I am unable to think clearly about the matter, because of the confusion of the relevant facts.
Yes, the "bishop" you quoted is not the "bishop" of the locality where the body is being put on view. He does not have jurisdiction there, nor does he give directives. He gave only an admonishment. Thus there is still no question of disobedience.
Of course you are correct that there are excellent reasons for prohibiting the faithful from touching the remains. I think the sisters, in their impetuosity and feverish self-promotion, are doing all concerned a great disservice. Perhaps your concerns are more aptly leveled against these sisters, than against the poor deceived faithful whose parched tongues are dragging the ground, panting for a sip of God.
Now, someone sent me the following video that seems to clear up some facts. Initially I thought it was being reported that Sister died on the Vigil of the Ascension, and was exhumed on the Feast Day. But not so. Apparently she was exhumed on or about April 28, 2023, the Feast of St. Louis Marie de Montfort. The video cites the Feast Day, not the date; but I looked it up and it is April 28th. Note that the reporter in this video says that there were "a few days of digging" - so we do not know exactly what day Mother Cecilia discovered the incorrupt foot. I very much want to know exactly what day that was.
The reporter says it took the sisters two weeks to clean the mold off the body. That would get us to on or about May 12th - approximately one week before the Feast of the Ascension, May 18th. I'm not sure when the story broke. I posted a thread about it one or two days after I learned of it.
After washing, the sister's body was found to be "remarkably preserved." According to Mother Cecelia, they had doctors and a coroner examine the remains, and it was certainly anomalous. But with regard to the habit, these professionals were "just dumbfounded." Sister said the habit was completely intact, "every thread," in spite of the damp, the mold, mildew, etc.
Interestingly, SrW was born on Palm Sunday, 1924.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnmmeHm_2FM
-
Did veneration of Sr. Wilhelmina suddenly stop?
-
I’d say the thread ran out of steam.
-
Meg strikes me as Judaized about race. I remember ScipioA from Fisheaters, one of the creepier and more Judaized people I've encountered on the Catholic fora, having nice things to say about Meg. ScipioA was extremely uptight about race. I think he had a niece who was mixed race. Very pro-Israel. Thought the Muslim-populated Middle East should be turned into glass.
Meg says she's 100% white. Three cheers for Meg. I'm 98% white as, like many white Americans, I have a little Indian blood.
-
Did veneration of Sr. Wilhelmina suddenly stop?
Here's the update:
Sr Wilhelmina - Benedictines of Mary
(https://benedictinesofmary.org/srwilhelmina/)Looks like she has been reinterred.
-
Here's the update:
Sr Wilhelmina - Benedictines of Mary
(https://benedictinesofmary.org/srwilhelmina/)Looks like she has been reinterred.
As far as I know, her body is permanently on display in a glass case in their church. Is that what you mean by reinterred?
Nadir mentioned that this thread has grown cold. Indeed, there is no news to report that I am aware of.
Upon this subject, I've always been of a wait and see frame of mind. I am waiting and seeing if there are any more interesting events that come about in the near future. This event, as a stand alone, does nothing for me. It is only in conjunction with other possible events that I feel we may be able to discern something.
-
As far as I know, her body is permanently on display in a glass case in their church. Is that what you mean by reinterred?
Nadir mentioned that this thread has grown cold. Indeed, there is no news to report that I am aware of.
Upon this subject, I've always been of a wait and see frame of mind. I am waiting and seeing if there are any more interesting events that come about in the near future. This event, as a stand alone, does nothing for me. It is only in conjunction with other possible events that I feel we may be able to discern something.
No, reinterred means back in the earth. Did you read the link?
-
No, reinterred means back in the earth. Did you read the link?
I clicked on it and did more than skim but less than completely read. I'll go back now and read carefully now. Thanks.
-
No, reinterred means back in the earth. Did you read the link?
Okay, this is what I call weird.
Yes, they did use the word reinter, but they do not elaborate. If you try to find current reports, under varying search parameters, you discover that all the news articles end after the first day or two of June. Most of the articles are from May. The link you posted was written in May.
The very last bit of news I became aware of, is that they have her under glass inside the church. I suppose that can be considered a reinternment.
It seems the entire story just fell off the map.
Big question, if she's under glass, is anything being done to preserve the body? Is it decomposing? Hmmm, hmmm, hmmmm.
It is still very newsworthy, because we want to see what happens to the body over time. Where are the reports?
P.S. I just now contacted them and asked for precise details on whether she is under glass, under the earth, or in a crypt in the church. Let's see if they respond.
P.P.S. She's definitely in the church because they give lots of parameters for comportment while making the visit. I think she's still under glass.
-
Hadn't the bishop cautioned about making more than is necessitated about the phenonemum. Maybe he has cracked down with a heavier hand.
-
Hadn't the bishop cautioned about making more than is necessitated about the phenonemum. Maybe he has cracked down with a heavier hand.
The sisters wrote me back. Very prompt reply. She's still under glass, and will remain so. This seems to be the end of it. Requiescat in pace!
-
The sisters wrote me back. Very prompt reply. She's still under glass, and will remain so. This seems to be the end of it. Requiescat in pace!
Well then that update on their website is misleading. Since when does reinter mean "under glass"? Why didn't they say that here?
The relics of a person are exhumed in the ordinary course of action for the opening of the causes of saints, leading many to believe that such a cause has been or will be opened. As this is not the case, we continue on with a simple reinterment of our foundress, and are seeking advice on a possible opening of a cause in the future, especially as Sister has not yet reached the required minimum of five years since death in order to begin. Initial statements regarding Sister’s extraordinary physical state have already been procured, but we acknowledge that further studies must be done later, in an official capacity.
While we can attest to Sister’s personal sanctity, we know that incorruptibility is not among the official signs taken by the Church as a miracle for sainthood, and that all things must be subjected to further scrutiny, especially by the competent authorities in the medical field. The life itself and favors received must be established as proof of holiness.
-
Well then that update on their website is misleading. Since when does reinter mean "under glass"? Why didn't they say that here?
I think the entire affair has the potential to be very misleading, indeed. We need to proceed with extreme caution here. There do exist less than edifying surrounding facts.
And it need not even be that time will tell. The whole episode is bound to be submerged in novus ordo filth.